Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pen clicking


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus.  Sandstein  04:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Pen clicking

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This just doesn't seem to warrant a Wiki page. Perhaps some of this could be merged in...I don't know, the OCD page? Is there a Bad Habits page?? JoelWhy (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The nomination does not give any policy-based reason to delete and seems to recommend merger rather than deletion. The article is remarkably well-sourced and so I'm now going to give its creator a barnstar for such a fine first draft. Warden (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as creator. Thankyou Warden :)--Coin945 (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment' -- With all due respect, Warden, did you really take a close look at the page? If you want a policy-based reason, we could go with notability (but there may be others, I would have to think about it.) The vast majority of the sources mention pen clicking in passing (far too trivial to be used as a source.) There are books where a character happens to engage in pen clicking. Several of the citations are to non-notable blog posts. Perhaps the best reference is an article from Australian Broadcasting which discusses a blogger saying pen clicking should be investigated, and a psychologist saying it's an interesting idea. There's virtually no substance here. This article really should be merged elsewhere, IMHO.JoelWhy (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no reason that it should be deleted. At the very worst merge it with OCD. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 16:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Although references which specifically label it pen clicking are blogs, it was used in the plot of GoldenEye. Dru of Id (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't. Bond had a pen which, when clicked, would trigger an explosion. The plot of the story was not even remotely related to the clicking of a pen. I really keep hoping this is all just a lark, and you guys are having a bit of fun at my expense. What next, an article on door closing? Surely I could find a million references where someone in a book slams a door, where someone in a movie does so, etc. I'm betting I could even find an article or two where someone with closes a door repeatedly. It still doesn't make the article notable.JoelWhy (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See Door closer, Close the Door campaign, Close Every Door, Close the Door, As One Door Closes, Just Get Up and Close the Door, Shut-door theology, Shut That Door!, &c. Warden (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this is starting to get ridiculous. I'm going to assume that little comment right here is actually meant to be humorous, and not actually an argument of any sort.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * These counterexamples disprove your contention about "an article on door closing". Any humour arising from this is incidental but it seems best to approach these discussions in a jocular way as this may help us keep a sense of proportion. Warden (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clear things up, it was actually JoelWhy that mentioned the door closing, not I, I was just the one to comment on your response. But more to the point, my question of whether this was supposed to be a joke stems from the fact that none of these articles are actually about the concept of closing a door, but about things that happent to have the word "Door Closing" in them, such as a music album, a TV Series, etc.  This not only doesn't address the poing the nominator was trying to make, it is also starting to go way out of bounds of what this discussion should actually be about.  Point taken about keeping things in perspective.  Please excuse my more contentious sounding remarks further down the page.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out who said what - these discussions can get confusing. I disagree with what you're saying about door closing though as the first two of those articles are very much about the physical closing of doors.  There's a bit more to it in both cases but the same can be said of pen clicking.  It's not just the physical action of clicking the pen which generates comment but the way that this affects people.  I was particularly interested to find a source which indicates that it may be used as a code by students cheating in exams.  In my experience, such topics often have such hidden depths and so time should be allowed for them to be plumbed. Warden (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that someone happening to click a pen in a movie once does nothing to help establish any sort of notability. Its kind of silly that this would even be an argument in the article's favor.  On that note, the fact that the last quarter of the article devolves into a list of random times pen clicking was used in pop culture, with their "sources" being things like youtube videos of The Simpsons, really isn't doing much in the article's favor.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Seriously, did anybody aside from the nominator actually bother looking at the sources? This is one of the worst sourced articles I've ever seen anyone try to claim was a "good" article.  I'm not sure if a single one of them actually counts as a reliable third party source.  The vast majority of the sources are from completely unreliable "Top Ten" humor articles.  There's a youtube video, a "Yahoo Answers" link.  One of the so called "sources" is from a passage in a fiction book, where a character in it happens to be clicking a pen.  Even the sources that seem halfway decent barely talk about pen clicking specifically, merely mentioning is as an example of a bad habbit.  So, if you want a policy based reason for deletion, WP:Reliable Sources is a good start.  There's also the question of whether or not the subject even passes the WP:GNG.  While there are sources that mention the phenomenon as an example of a bad habbit, I'm not seeing much here that talks about the subject itself as anything that is independently notable.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're the first person to use the word "good" here so please don't use misleading quotation marks. The article is obviously still in need of work but it is not yet three hours old and so it is quite inappropriate to be demanding that it be high quality.  Our editing policy makes it very clear that we welcome such good faith starts on a topic: "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. ". Warden (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well then its a good thing that deletion discussions last for 7 days, giving ample time for actual real sources to be found to establish notability. I may have been the first to say the word "good", but I'm certainly not the one to have claimed that the article was "remarkably well-sourced", which at this point is blatantly false.  If it tuns out that the article's subject actually can be referenced by multiple, non-trivial reliable third party sources as stated in Wikipedia's policies, I'll be happy to withdraw my deletion vote.  At this point, I stand by my statement that there's no way this article passes the requirments of WP:Reliable Sources and the WP:GNG.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Warden is correct, he did not use the word "good". Instead, he said it was "remarkably well-sourced." Admit it, Warden, you did not look at the actual sources before you said that. I don't mean that as an insult, but I just don't see any way an experienced editor could look at the sources cited and agree this is a well-sourced article. The article is a patently trivial topic -- silly, even. And, its sources reflect just how non-notable the topic is.JoelWhy (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is indeed remarkable to see such an article here which already has such a stack of sources. This seems to be due to the use of an editing tool called ProveIt and I'd not seen this before.  I did enough checking of the article to satisfy myself that it was worth keeping.  Obviously this topic is not rocket science like the recent FA about general relativity which I also read with interest.  But the facts it recounts seem reasonably accurate and interesting and we have room enough for both. Warden (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Before I started work on the article, I did consciously wonder if it was suitable for Wikipedia. I concluded that it was and got stuck in. I do think that all the info here (while lots of it not being backed up in reliable sources) is "true", so now that the groundwork has been done, we just need to do a bit of digging and replace the contentious sources with reliable ones. From there we can expand, turn discrete sentences into paragraphs etc. Also, I agree with Warden in that for a first draft on an arguably "trivial" or "less notable" topic, what he saw was impressive as a first draft. I used what I could find after a relatively shallow search, and the result is in the page. As I have said, the info gathered from non-notable sources will most probably be fixed in the near future. No biggy. :)--Coin945 (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Warden (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Folks who have voted to keep, I just need you to really think about this. All of the arguments for keeping this page -- and the same level of citations -- equally apply to the following potenial Wiki pages. Door Closing, Desk Tapping, Leaning back in your chair, Chewing with your mouth open, Making fart sounds by sticking your hand under your arm, etc, etc, etc. I suspect I could find just as many of the same "quality" citations, references in pop culture, etc, to create the same quality page. I'm sorry, I am not questioning anyone's good faith here. But, I am questioning your sanity!! (Just kidding, please don't be offended.) This page is completely and utterly deserving of being deleted (with the better stuff possibly merged elsewhere, but even that is debatable.) I urge you guys to look again at the sources. (Or, I at least pray that other editors will objectively review the page and sources and either support the delete option, or explain to me how it is that I cannot understand why anyone is defending inclusion of this page.)JoelWhy (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Where's the article on Twisting paper clips into improbable shapes, I ask. (not on my must do list, for sure) This article should be cut down to size and merged into fidgeting.TheLongTone (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment – The following are references currently in the article that are comprised of significant coverage from reliable sources:
 * Book sources, not quite significant coverage, but beyond passing mentions:
 * Very short news piece:
 * Passing mentions
 * Note that these are culminated only from sources currently in the article, and that other's may be available from internet searches.
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 02:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It'd be kind of hard pressed to say the source from the Dalhart Texan to be signifigant coverage. The concept of pen clicking is just briefly mentioned in the lead in of the article, and then again at the end, both times as just a singular example amongst a long list of what are annoying habits in general.  This again just leads credence to the idea that if anything, parts of this article could be merged into a more appropriate article such as the suggested fidgeting, but really lacks any independent notability.  The same could be arguably said about the the two book sources as well.  In both cases, the subject of the book, or even in the section of the book, is not about pen clicking.  Pen clicking is just used as an example, amongst many others, of certain concepts in general.  Invasion of ones boundaries in one, and a possible sales tactic in the other.  Both cases just kind of show that this concept can be used as part of a larger subject, but really has no business being a wholly seperate article of its own.  The ABC article is decent, but its is so far the only decent reference included in the article so far.  As for the potential of finding other sources online, I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong if multiple reliable sources on the subject can be found, but I've already spent a good deal of time today searching for these on the subject with little luck.  Rorshacma (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * After revisiting, agreed about the Dalhart Texan article being less than significant coverage; moved this entry within my comment above to "Passing mentions". Northamerica1000(talk) 10:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've found some stuff in the history of click pens and also various youtube videos demonstrating how a click pen works. Even the |original patent These seem to add notability to the topic.--Coin945 (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you trying to make this article about? Before this, the entire article, and all of the discussion here, has been about the specific action of clicking a pen.  But now you're adding general information about the actual type of pen itself, which is a completely different subject.  If that's what you're actually trying to do here, create an article about this kind of pen in general, I would suggest that you completely rework this article from scratch.  Remove 99 percent of the content here, including the numerous terrible sources, and actually try to create an article on Retractable Pen.  Find reliable sources on this kind of pen itself, and then perhaps include a brief section on the repeated clicking of the pen as an annoyance using that single good sorce from the Australian Broadcast Corps.  But the way you're going about it now is just all over the place, which isn't exactly working.   Rorshacma (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My main point was that some of that info could be used as background information, so the article (which is still being worked out....) would have a history/background section, then a "so how exactly do you click a pen and why does it made that noise" section, a "why does one click a pen" section, then moving into the effects of rapid clicking. The article might seem very confused at the moment, and I'd have to agree with you. That is what happens when you have a draft that's kinks are being worked out. P.S. What is your opinion on an article on "Retractable pen" then? Shifting the focus of the article might to it some good notability-wise.--Coin945 (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It'd be kind of hard pressed to say the source from the Dalhart Texan to be signifigant coverage. The concept of pen clicking is just briefly mentioned in the lead in of the article, and then again at the end, both times as just a singular example amongst a long list of what are annoying habits in general.  This again just leads credence to the idea that if anything, parts of this article could be merged into a more appropriate article such as the suggested fidgeting, but really lacks any independent notability.  The same could be arguably said about the the two book sources as well.  In both cases, the subject of the book, or even in the section of the book, is not about pen clicking.  Pen clicking is just used as an example, amongst many others, of certain concepts in general.  Invasion of ones boundaries in one, and a possible sales tactic in the other.  Both cases just kind of show that this concept can be used as part of a larger subject, but really has no business being a wholly seperate article of its own.  The ABC article is decent, but its is so far the only decent reference included in the article so far.  As for the potential of finding other sources online, I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong if multiple reliable sources on the subject can be found, but I've already spent a good deal of time today searching for these on the subject with little luck.  Rorshacma (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * After revisiting, agreed about the Dalhart Texan article being less than significant coverage; moved this entry within my comment above to "Passing mentions". Northamerica1000(talk) 10:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've found some stuff in the history of click pens and also various youtube videos demonstrating how a click pen works. Even the |original patent These seem to add notability to the topic.--Coin945 (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you trying to make this article about? Before this, the entire article, and all of the discussion here, has been about the specific action of clicking a pen.  But now you're adding general information about the actual type of pen itself, which is a completely different subject.  If that's what you're actually trying to do here, create an article about this kind of pen in general, I would suggest that you completely rework this article from scratch.  Remove 99 percent of the content here, including the numerous terrible sources, and actually try to create an article on Retractable Pen.  Find reliable sources on this kind of pen itself, and then perhaps include a brief section on the repeated clicking of the pen as an annoyance using that single good sorce from the Australian Broadcast Corps.  But the way you're going about it now is just all over the place, which isn't exactly working.   Rorshacma (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My main point was that some of that info could be used as background information, so the article (which is still being worked out....) would have a history/background section, then a "so how exactly do you click a pen and why does it made that noise" section, a "why does one click a pen" section, then moving into the effects of rapid clicking. The article might seem very confused at the moment, and I'd have to agree with you. That is what happens when you have a draft that's kinks are being worked out. P.S. What is your opinion on an article on "Retractable pen" then? Shifting the focus of the article might to it some good notability-wise.--Coin945 (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Help I found this sound clip of a pen clicking (I think it's free). . I've never been that good at uploading pics/vids/sounds to Wikipedia so can someone do it for me, please? Also |found this flickr pic--Coin945 (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Take the sourced parts that are related to how pens work and move them into ballpoint pen. Take the sourced parts that are habit-related and move them into fidgeting. Delete the rest. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 06:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD, and you'll spot results straight away. Pen-clicking 'should be investigated  "pen clicking can reflect how stressed doctors, nurses and allied health professionals are in a ward."  Other results are there as well, just read through the summaries.   D r e a m Focus  02:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This has already been discussed somewhat at length. The ABC article you quoted has already been noted as being the singular decent third party source presented so far.  The rest of the articles that come up with a google news search are either humor pieces, which are not suitable as reliable third party sources, or trivial mentions, merely briefly mentioning pen clicking amongst a long list of general bad habits.  Rorshacma 03:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are mentions of entire bands comprised of pen clickers. It is mentioned as a common method of stress release in the office setting.  Pen clicking helped a university student memorize information, allowing him to then win big on JEOPARDY, two days as a champion, and the third day just got less money but still a nice amount.    D r e a m Focus  14:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Except how many of those examples are actually notable, and actually within the scope of the article? The pen-clicking band isn't.  Its a novelty act that performs at places such as the Doo Dah Parade, along side other such acts like a briefcase drill team.  Where exactly would that go in the article that would help establish any sort of notability of the actual concept of "Pen Clicking"?  It would be just a random bit of trivia, about as relevent to the article as that link to James Bond having a bomb that was activated by a pen click.  That doesn't establish notability, its just a unnotable factoid that just happens to have involved a pen.  The same goes for the Jeopardy winner.  What would we actually say about that in the article, aside from just listing at the end a piece of trivia that says "One winner of Jeopardy says they used a pen click to practice"?  And that's really what the problem with this article is.  Yes, there are going to be plenty of articles/books/etc. that mention the words "pen clicking", since that is an actual normal everyday practice.  Very few of these are both: A. Reliable third party sources, and B. Shows any sort of independent notability of the subject itself, and isn't just a brief, trivial mention.  If you're actually finding sources that meet both of these, then add them to the article, so we can base further debates with them included.  But right now, there are 33 references listed in the article, and only one of them so far seems to do this.  And that, I'm afraid, does not meet the requirements of the WP:GNG.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and all of the arguments would work equally well for my other proposed articles (Leaning back in your chair, Chewing with your mouth open, etc.) Maybe a Jeopardy champion didn't perform these acts, but perhaps King Henry XIV was known for his bad habit of chewing with his mouth open. Or, perhaps JFK would sometimes fall over when he leaned back in his chair. Such anecdotes don't make it worthy of a Wiki page.JoelWhy (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a world record for pen clicking notable enough for a major newspaper to cover it. The article is filled with references, which taken as a whole indicate notability.   D r e a m Focus  22:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there was also coverage by another major newspaper on the world record being broken for "Human Matress Dominoes" here:  amongst some other very strange records, but I don't think anyone will be clamoring to have Wikipedia articles written about them. :)  On a more serious note, though, JoelWhy's point is kind of apt.  That so many of these sources are just minor, anecdotal stories that happened to involve a pen.  I'd also like to point out that some of the other sources in the article are not even about the right subject.  The one about the insulin pen, for example, does not use even remotely the same mechanism as a retractable pen, and is obviously just something that was included because it happened to include the words "pen" and "click".  And when you take out all of the references that are either wrong, come from unreliable sources, or are things like Youtube videos and fiction, how many are actually left?  And then amongst those, how many of them can be seriously considered to be more than just passing mentions?  Rorshacma (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: per COMMONSENSE if nothing else p  b  p  02:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: How does COMMONSENSE apply to this situation?--Coin945 (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "How does common sense apply to this situation?" Funny, I thought common sense was applicable all the time.  And common sense would say we don't need an article on such a trivial topic  p  b  p  13:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge sourced information to Fidgeting and Ballpoint pen articles, per WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sorry for repeated comments here, since at this point I'm just beating a dead horse, but somehow, the references for this article keep getting worse the more it is edited! The so-called references now include a Facebook page, and actually includes an article from The Onion as a source.  And no, the article does not actually list this as a joke, it actually includes information from an Onion page as a factual occurance.  I'm sorry, but this has got to be a joke at this point, because there's no way someone would put in so many references in an article, so obviously without actually reading them.  Rorshacma (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ... splutter, gag, stagger, sharp intake of breath... Delete of course!!!. WTF is happening here. This is Wikipedia, an encyclopaedia for goodness sake. This sort of rubbish makes us a laughing stock. 00:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Very little of the things that people routinely due is trivia. That a conventional encyclopedia might not have had an article on this topic is evidence of our superiority in coverage to the limited outlook of traditional encyclopedias. Ridicule is not an argument. I could write a  sentence or two showing anything is preposterous, if i was just trying to be clever. This is related to boredom only in the sense that kissing is related to affection - a notable manifestation of general human behavior. We could of course, reduce all 4 article to human behavior, but we're an encyclopedia, and if things have sufficient references, we write articles on them. The arguments for deletion amount to the well known phrase, IDONTLIKEIT. Those who want to read only on the topics they consider serious enough are free to do so.  DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I suggest that if some of the sources in the article aren't that notable, perhaps a few of you could hop over to Pen clicking and give me a hand. As well as just adding more notable content, the article needs to be reformatted etc... it does have its problems, no shame in admitting that, but perhaps some assistance is in order.--Coin945 (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG and Warden. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.